The Vishwa Hindu Parishad will give the government 'one last chance' to take steps towards construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, party vice-president Giriraj Kishore said on Saturday.

The issue will come up for discussion at a three-day meeting at the party's Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal (central steering committee) starting September 15. About 150 sants have been invited for the meet, being held in Agarwal Bhavan in Punjabi Bagh, though only 70-90 are expected to turn up.

"Things have drifted long enough. We will now decide what is to be done for the construction of the Ram temple. We are not satisfied (with the government's measures) and our sants will show the way if the government is found wanting.

"We have carried out a peaceful campaign so far. It is up to the government to ensure that it stays that way," Kishore told rediff.com

"The Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal will decide the future course of action," he said.

The VHP's sadhus and sants are reportedly impatient at the delay in temple construction even after the Archaeological Survey of India had provided ' incontrovertible proof ' that a temple existed on the site over which the Babri masjid was built.

"The ASI report proves that an ancient temple existed at the disputed site. What more proof is needed?

"Should our rulers sacrifice concrete evidence for the sake of pacifying the pseudo-secularists? Can the Hindu dharma be subject to the whims and fancies of Islamic fundamentalists? These questions will be debated and discussed at the meeting," Kishore said.

"We are for the construction of the temple as early as possible, either following dialogue or a court verdict," was Bharatiya Janata Party's chief M Venkaiah Naidu's comment to the VHP's latest threat.

BJP leaders met on Saturday at Naidu's Aurangzeb Road residence to take stock of the situation.

This time, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has thrown its weight behind the VHP. RSS spokesman Ram Madhav said all parties should bring forward legislation for construction of the temple.

Lashing out against those criticising the ASI report, Madhav said, "What do these people want? How can they reject the findings of internationally-reputed archaeologists by bringing up imaginary faults to serve their narrow ends?"

"Criticism of the ASI report is a result of the frustration of the sections whose credentials as anti-mandir, if not anti-Hindu, are well known," he said.